From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ERQ6I-0000H3-2C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:12:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9H87u8Q015738; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:07:56 GMT Received: from amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.12]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9H87trZ000777 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:07:55 GMT Received: from amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3788D2D2C97 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (hathor.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.1]) by amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088932D2B2D for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de ([139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.8) with ESMTP id 8516050 for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:55 +0200 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Errors when doing an emerge -uD world Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:09:55 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <16415.202.175.143.143.1129511662.squirrel@localhost> <200510170323.26637.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <43531195.6080802@mn.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <43531195.6080802@mn.rr.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510171009.55681.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Spam-Level: * (26%, 'BAYES_90_100 3, __CD 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0') X-Archives-Salt: e5fc4c14-81d5-4c41-b76b-5bbf181147cf X-Archives-Hash: dec7cffe95599fb1a1691cc986131606 On Monday 17 October 2005 04:51, John C. Shimek wrote: > >>emm, is not -uD something almost everybody does, but nobody should do? > >> > >>I had the same error - AFAIR reemerging java-config solved it. > > No, -uD is update deep, -UD is what you should NOT be doing. the U > means update only. The difference is if say package-1.45 was marked > stable and then found to be buggy, it gets masked in some way. Then > package-1.44 would be the most current stable package. The U flag says > not to go back to the 1.44 package. On the other hand, the -u flag will > "upgrade" to an older package if it is currently the newest unmasked or > stable package. -U is the OTHER flag you should never use ;) If I remember correctly, a lot of time ago, it was said that you should not use -d, and must not use -U .... but ok, everybody chooses his own poison. I never do --deep updates, but occasionally -U update, because I am not willing to fiddle around with /etc/portage/package.mask /-.unmask for something that will be/should be marked stable in the next few days.... -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list